Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

[BCP1928]

-

​

You may think of me as being a coward (which is fine with me), but at least i am not an unbeliever. As for gaining credibility i could care less about having any credibility among science and people who hold to science over The Bible in the area of God;s creation.
Actually if i am receiving credibility among science, then i know i am going down the wrong path of believing deceptions.

Of course many of us, believers and unbelievers alike, wonder why you don't consider the possibility that your interpretation of
Scripture with respect to the Moon is just wrong.

 

[driewerf]

You may think of me as being a coward (which is fine with me), but at least i am not an unbeliever.​

The moral high ground this gives you is not so high, if you can't even have the integrity to admit to be wrong when being wrong.

As for gaining credibility i could care less about having any credibility among science and people who hold to science over The Bible in the area of God;s creation.

Oh? How do you think you will convert non believers? Or do you plan to preach only to the choir? That' so much easier of course.

Actually if i am receiving credibility among science, then i know i am going down the wrong path of believing deceptions.

Yes yes, the biblical view is so much more useful, except when it has to be used for predicting solar eclipses, designing computer chips, the development of surgical techniques, finding ores or oil, predicting hurricane paths and what not? Anything practical, science is beats the bible hands down. But that's all deception.

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

If you're looking for a set of Biblical standards to use, here you go:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Are you using the word 'contradict' rather than use the word 'interpret'? Because even those who say that the Bible contradicts itself, say so due to their own interpretations.

And your views of flat earth are based on your own interpretations of certain scriptures versus the interpretations of other Bible believing Christians who interpret the same verses you do, to state that the earth is spherical. It's a difference of interpretation., not contradiction.

It's also the reason why there are so many different denominations within Christianity, each insisting that they have the only correct theology. But that is human nature. The same exists among the Jews who also have different beliefs in their theology ie, the Pharisees and the Tzadekians aka the (Sadducees). They also have many sages who though to our thinking they contradict each other but the Jews call the differences putting an emphasis on what others haven't, since God's knowledge is unending and multileveled. But there are among some Jews that seriously believe there is a planet called Nabiru. So take some things that they say with a grain or an entire box of salt.

Science involves observation and making equipment to prove the observations. What you do is ignore observation when it in your view doesn't agree with your interpretation of the scriptures. And thereby conclude that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
When I posted to you earlier I didn't know anything of what you believed, but since reading a number of your posts, I change my mind. In my previous post I was giving the benefit of the doubt concerning flat earthers.. but now I see that perhaps what you engage in is after all on some level a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty that is clothed in religious fervor. Perhaps you'd reply ditto concerning me.

I pray that all of us come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you using the word 'contradict' rather than use the word 'interpret'?

Yes.

Because even those who say that the Bible contradicts itself, say so due to their own interpretations.

No argument there.

And your views of flat earth are based on your own interpretations of certain scriptures versus the interpretations of other Bible believing Christians who interpret the same verses you do, to state that the earth is spherical. It's a difference of interpretation., not contradiction.

I don't believe in a flat earth.

It's also the reason why there are so many different denominations within Christianity, each insisting that they have the only correct theology.

That's no reason to abstain from interpreting the Bible.

When I posted to you earlier I didn't know anything of what you believed, but since reading a number of your posts, I change my mind. In my previous post I was giving the benefit of the doubt concerning flat earthers.. but now I see that perhaps what you engage in is after all on some level a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty that is clothed in religious fervor. Perhaps you'd reply ditto concerning me.

I'm not a flat earther.

 

[Estrid]

I write like that all the time. It's the way I was trained and I've never even been to the British Isles. (I flew overhead a couple times.)

Mom got her PhD in English lit at Edinburgh.

I have to work at not sounding ridiculousoly bookish /stilted.

 

[d taylor]

Of course many of us, believers and unbelievers alike, wonder why you don't consider the possibility that your interpretation of
Scripture with respect to the Moon is just wrong.

-

​

Show one single verse in The Bible where i should question what Genesis 1 states. That God created two great lights to give light to the earth.

 

[BCP1928]

-

​

Show one single verse in The Bible where i should question what Genesis 1 states. That God created two great lights to give light to the earth.

The Hebrew word has the sense of luminary--that which provides light. There is no implication that it emits light. In any case the word is used indiscriminately in that passage for all heavenly bodies, which means you must believe that the planets are visible to us because they emit light, rather than reflecting the light of the Sun

 

[Lost4words]

-

​

Show one single verse in The Bible where i should question what Genesis 1 states. That God created two great lights to give light to the earth.

Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation....

 

[d taylor]

The Hebrew word has the sense of luminary--that which provides light. There is no implication that it emits light. In any case the word is used indiscriminately in that passage for all heavenly bodies, which means you must believe that the planets are visible to us because they emit light, rather than reflecting the light of the Sun

In the context where God states He created two great lights why would light be applied to sun but not applied to the moon.

Planets nowhere does the Bible state God created planets. Gods creation is listed as the sun, moon and stars. If God created planets would it be so hard to include this in the creation account of Genesis 1

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

 

[d taylor]

Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation....

-

​

At least mine is solely based on The Bible and is not influenced by science.

 

[BCP1928]

In the context where God states He created two great lights why would light be applied to sun but not applied to the moon.

Planets nowhere does the Bible state God created planets. Gods creation is listed as the sun, moon and stars. If God created planets would it be so hard to include this in the creation account of Genesis 1

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

Maybe the Devil made the planets.

 

[sjastro]

-

​

Show one single verse in The Bible where i should question what Genesis 1 states. That God created two great lights to give light to the earth.

Then Genesis is wrong, there are three great lights which give light to the Earth, Sun, Moon and Venus.
Venus can also cast shadows.

Setup.

Result.


​

 

[sjastro]

Planets nowhere does the Bible state God created planets. Gods creation is listed as the sun, moon and stars. If God created planets would it be so hard to include this in the creation account of Genesis 1

So how were the planets created, using the evil and deceptive science as an explanation?
Evidently you are unaware the word planet means wanderer.
The ancients including the Biblical writers considered planets to be wandering stars.

 

[BCP1928]

The ancients including the Biblical writers considered planets to be wandering stars.

But you have to go outside the Bible for that bit of information. Sorry, that's not allowed.

 

[sjastro]

But you have to go outside the Bible for that bit of information. Sorry, that's not allowed.

Assuming Genesis was first written in Hebrew (although one individual thinks it was in Jacobean English), the Hebrew word for planet is כוכב לכת which means "walking star".
So I think we can give the Biblical writers a bit of slack.

 

[sjastro]

View attachment 347495
Result.


​

An interesting observation when comparing the shadows cast by Venus and the Sun, note the edges for the shadow cast by Venus is much sharper.
This is because the Venus is a theoretical point source, while the Sun is an extended object.

​

The fuzzy or blurry edges in shadows caused by the Sun (or Moon) is due to the Penumbra.

 

[Hans Blaster]

-

​

At least mine is solely based on The Bible and is not influenced by science.

Then you are in the wrong section of CF. You should take this to biblical interpolation part of the forum. This is the science section, you can't throw away science here.

 

[d taylor]

Then Genesis is wrong, there are three great lights which give light to the Earth, Sun, Moon and Venus.
Venus can also cast shadows.

View attachment 347492
Setup.
View attachment 347495
Result.


​

-
​

No The Bible is not wrong, venus is giving light just like the other stars. The sun for the day and the moon and stars for night.

To Him who made great lights,
For His mercy endures forever—
The sun to rule by day,
For His mercy endures forever;
The moon and stars to rule by night,
For His mercy endures forever.

 

[dlamberth]

​

At least mine is solely based on The Bible and is not influenced by science.

Nor is it influenced by what we literately see in God's own Creation. This isn't about science. It's about reality.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

So how were the planets created, using the evil and deceptive science as an explanation?
Evidently you are unaware the word planet means wanderer.
The ancients including the Biblical writers considered planets to be wandering stars.

No, no mention of wanderer in Genesis 1 or Psalms or even when Paul writes in

There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

So since planets are never mention as being something God created (in The Bible) the verse from Jude is not speaking about a planet. But as the verse states a star.